safe_check
Run both a recall lookup and a counterfeit-risk check in one call. Best general-purpose product-safety screen.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| price | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| marketplace | No |
Safe-Check (recall + counterfeit)
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool runs two checks in one call. However, it does not state read-only/destructive nature, auth needs, or side effects. Adequate but not detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded action, and clear purpose. Highly concise and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the brief description is insufficient. Lacks parameter explanations, return value details, and usage context. Agent cannot fully utilize the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about parameters. It does not mention price, marketplace, or query purpose, leaving the agent to guess. No value added beyond bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it performs both a recall lookup and counterfeit-risk check in one call, distinguishing it from siblings that are single-purpose tools. Verb is specific and resource is product-safety screen.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description says 'Best general-purpose product-safety screen,' implying use for general safety checks. Sibling tools are named (counterfeit_risk, recall_lookup), suggesting alternatives for specific checks. Lacks explicit when-not conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: counterfeit_risk for counterfeit risk assessment, recall_lookup for product recall checks, and safe_check runs both together. There is no ambiguity or overlap in their functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with descriptive verb-noun combinations (counterfeit_risk, recall_lookup, safe_check). The naming is clear and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain of product safety checking. Each tool earns its place, covering counterfeit risk, recall lookup, and a combined operation without being too few or excessive.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers the core safety checks: counterfeit risk and recall lookup, plus a combined call for convenience. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose of a product safety screen.